What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Update:
For those of you joining late who don’t wish to wade through the 125 comments, the post below was a thought experiment to test a hypothesis, not a serious condemnation of Safe Haven Laws.
On several anti-gay marriage threads, it is posited that gays shouldn’t qualify for marriage recognition because they cannot breed. Some claim it may actually affect the social norm of heterosexuals to marry and have children, and there is a government interest in maintaining procreation.
Yet no one can describe the mechanism – exactly how government recognition of those who cannot breed will affect the behavior of those who can. I suspected it is an excuse to get to a desired result; that the proponents of the idea don’t actually believe government has such power of persuasion over the second group by the simple act of recognizing the first group.
To test their commitment to that theory, I posted below and adopted their claim: That government recognition of one group (those who are abandoning their babies) will cause another group (those who are not) to be affected on the decision to abandon their babies too.
In this thread, the idea that others would have their attitude affected about child rearing based upon government recognition of those who are abandoning their children was denied. The almost mystical power of persuasion the government can have over one group by recognizing another disappeared.
When stopping gays marrying was the desired result, government power of persuasion was claimed. When the desired result was saving children, government power of persuasion to cause child abandonment (by assisting in the abandonment!) was at one end of the spectrum denied and at the other end ignored.
______________________________________________________________________
That country would be America. Do you even recognize her anymore?
All 50 states have adopted a form of the Safe Haven Infant Protection Act.
Under the law, within 30 days after birth, you can drop your child off at any police station or hospital and walk out.
In fact, the law has a slogan: “No shame. No blame. No names.”
No names?
If no parent comes back to claim the child for 21 days, the State will move in Court to terminate the parental rights of the parents and allow for adoption. That means there will be no child support responsibility of the birth parents, either.
I suppose we can call it the pro-orgy law, because there seems to no longer be any government disapproval of reckless sex. One can imagine some sympathetic people this might help, but isn’t this also an easy out for the prostitute, the philandering man and shameless tart?
I recalled this law when discussing gay marriage with member KC Mulville.
KC, like many of our members, had made the point that gay marriage is unwarranted because marriage is inexplicably tied to birthing children, and it is an accepted truth that “society demands biological parents raise their children.”
Not anymore. Now that every state allows you to rid yourself of parental responsibility with the ease of dropping off your child like she were a pizza, the once accepted truth that society demands we care for our children is now an untruth. Demand it? Society is no longer even suggesting it.
If the case against Gay Marriage is that government acceptance of a behavior is an encouragement of the behavior, then what behavior is this law encouraging?
I will concede a couple of points. We’ve always allowed people to give up their children for adoption. This just makes it easier, and perhaps the ease is exactly what gives me pause. Once we remove any consequence to birthing a child, haven’t we devalued human life? Haven't we accepted hedonism?
Also, this law has obvious cross-over to the abortion debate. I can see a pro-life position in this, by telling women if they feel emotionally unready to be a parent, or to cite the Supreme Court, not financially ready (as vulgar as I find that excuse, it is part of the basis for the Court’s opinion), then all they need to do is let the child live, and society will care for the child.
Of course, this has to be like poison to anyone who has a sliver of traditionalism or social conservatism (not to mention parental instinct). Nothing in this law stops a rich and ready person from transferring their child-rearing responsibility to the State, even if the excuse is they are too lazy or simply can’t be bothered. Or they wanted a boy, not a girl. Or this child is too sick and inconvenient.
If our culture of family values is spiraling downward, the state promoting a no cost, no shame abandonment of children has to be the latest point on the continuum toward the destruction of nuclear families that has at the other end no fault divorce and the repealing of alienation of affections as a tort.
So I again turn to the Ricochet political and cultural noosphere for answers. What do we think of these state sanctioned and supported child abandonment laws? Net positive or net negative?
- Comment (200)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Perhaps it's because I'm a female who has gone through multiple pregnancies and given birth to children, but it strikes me as odd that we'd suggest that what's happening here is "easy."
In a culture where we permit abortion on demand, laws that permit mothers to provide for the children they easily could have killed but didn't by giving them up so that others might take care of them sound all right by me.
Jul '10
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Do they have specific recycling bins? You know - paper, cardboard, glass, metal, compost...
Oct '10
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Should there be bin named Soylent ? Grim...
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.: Perhaps it's because I'm a female who has gone through multiple pregnancies and given birth to children, but it strikes me as odd that we'd suggest that what's happening here is "easy."
In a culture where we permit abortion on demand, laws that permit mothers to provide for the children they easily could have killed but didn't by giving them up so that others might take care of them sound all right by me. · Jun 21 at 2:13pm
Mollie you were very involved in the gay marriage thread.
Was your contention (I don't recall) a fear that allowing gay marriage is a government acceptence of it, and therefore can be seen as an encouragement?
If so, what then of this law? Is it accepting or encouraging anything?
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Let's put it this way. Imagine you are a young woman who has sex and gets pregnant. The dad leaves. Your parents are either not around or coercing you to get rid of the baby. You have no community support and your friends wonder why you don't just have an abortion.
You know you can't provide for the child, but you also know you can give her life -- the greatest gift any mother can give. So you do that. You go through 10 unbelievably difficult months of vomiting, overwhelming tiredness and yet the inability to sleep. You pack on 40 pounds -- all in your womb area -- and you have no clothes to wear and your friends all think you're weird. You go through 24 hours of painful labor and deliver a healthy baby. You have nowhere to take the baby and so you make the most difficult decision you'll ever make -- you leave her at the hospital and pray that God will provide a family who can take care of her. Your guts are wrenched and you are in agony.
What was the question again?
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Tommy De Seno
Mollie you were very involved in the gay marriage thread.
Was your contention (I don't recall) a fear that allowing gay marriage is a government acceptence of it, and therefore can be seen as an encouragement?
If so, what then of this law? Is it accepting or encouraging anything? · Jun 21 at 2:22pm
No, that wasn't my contention at all. My questions on the same-sex marriage law are still there, hanging, ready for any proponent of changing marriage law to answer ....
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
On a related note--think of how easy no-fault divorce has made it to break the marriage contract.
FDR loved to say that "necessitous men are not free men." In other words, government exists to free us from living under necessity. We cannot be held accountable for our choices. (That is unless the Progressive experts decide we should be held accountable! But accountability is not related to traditional moral matters such as family responsibilities.)
This seems like an extension of the pro-choice argument to me. Just because the decision was made not to abort a baby, why should the parent(s) be constrained to provide for the child's needs? And adoption is a big hassle. Just leave the child at the fire station or hospital, no muss/no fuss.
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
The question was about the prostitute dropping off her 5th trick baby and getting back to work.
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
When you consider the alternatives --abortion, leaving the newborn in a dumpster to die, subjecting the child to a life of neglect, abuse by alcoholic and drug addict men that flitter in and out of the mother's life, and government dependence --I'd say laws like these are quite literally lifesavers.
Plus, there is no shortage of loving, responsible families who would love to adopt an American child, so it's not the State that ends up with the child-rearing responsibility.
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Did't you leave out another alternative - rearing the child yourself?
May '11
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
How often have children been abandoned under this law? I must be totally missing your point, Tommy, but I doubt if it really encourages irresponsible behavior, nor do I think it relates to gay marriage or the breakdown of the nuclear family.
Nov '10
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
I completely agree with Mollie on this question. To my way of thinking, this law also encourages the idea that perhaps a single mother isn't the best person to raise a child--an idea that in most circles is now roundly rejected. In fact, we generally subsidize single mothers who want to raise their children alone.
Here, we're offering that mother the chance to do something that's usually very hard for a mother--hand off her child to someone who can see to it that the child is properly cared for, and eventually adopted. So, to me, this law seems like one that those of us who favor the traditional family can support enthusiastically.
Would it be better if the mother made a more formal adoption plan? Sure, but I assume that this set of circumstances only arises in a setting where the mother has very few mental or emotional resources, perhaps because of her youth. Would you rather see such a mother try to raise the child?
Aug '10
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Well, it's not exactly with no consequences. You say yourself:
Tommy De Seno:
If no parent comes back to claim the child for 21 days, the State will move in Court to terminate the parental rights of the parents and allow for adoption.
Forfeiting your parental rights (forever, right?) is a consequence. The question is whether it's enough of a consequence.
Dec '10
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
I know many prospective adoptive parents and have watched their agony, over the years. Adoption is made exceedingly difficult, so most turn to overseas.
I am 100% behind anything that facilitates a woman carrying a baby to term if she chooses to, and having that child become available for adoption.
Isn't that the real issue here, as opposed to gay marriage or foisting infants onto the State?
Apr '11
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
What a chilling post! I am happy to say my state of Texas was the first to enact such a law and it was passed to protect babies of mothers---invariably young, panicked mothers--after a spate of abandonments, some of which ended tragically. It is beyond me how anyone could suggest that such laws devalue life--- quite the contrary. And unplanned pregnancies have occurred for centuries, I don't think safe haven laws have suddenly encouraged teens to start having sex because hey, we can just give the baby away! So to answer your question, I think it says something very good about a country that has such laws.
Jun '10
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
These laws are in place to help the child. In a perfect world the woman (or girl) dealing with a crisis pregnancy would take advantage of the services offered by Sisters of Life and be helped throughout her pregnancy (and after) with nutrition, medical care, counseling, and anything else she might need. This, to me, is the next best thing. Babies are often left to die in dumsters and toilets. I'd rather a hospital or firehouse be the destination.
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Interesting point you make. Doesn't your argument call into question those who claim government recognition of gay marriage will cause a change in behavior of so many people as to threaten the institution of marriage itself?
Rules of sociology shouldn't change. Either government recognition of a behavior can affect subsequent choices or it can't.
What say you? Can it or can't it?
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Lucy Pevensie: I completely agree with Mollie on this question. To my way of thinking, this law also encourages the idea that perhaps a single mother isn't the best person to raise a child--an idea that in most circles is now roundly rejected. In fact, we generally subsidize single mothers who want to raise their children alone.
Here, we're offering that mother the chance to do something that's usually very hard for a mother--hand off her child to someone who can see to it that the child is properly cared for, and eventually adopted. So, to me, this law seems like one that those of us who favor the traditional family can support enthusiastically.
Would it be better if the mother made a more formal adoption plan? Sure, but I assume that this set of circumstances only arises in a setting where the mother has very few mental or emotional resources, perhaps because of her youth. Would you rather see such a mother try to raise the child? · Jun 21 at 2:39pm
Lucy we offer the same abandonment service to the father. Does that change your answer?
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Tommy De Seno
Did't you leave out another alternative - rearing the child yourself? · Jun 21 at 2:38pm
As though that were some easy feat. Some people are incapable of raising a child.
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Another comment that ignores the fathers. This law helps deadbeat Dads too. Are you for that?